Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!

[posthuman]

What I see from Irenaeus, while yes of course he did talk about the immortal soul, he also talked about the soul that dies when God is ready for it to die.

but this is you doing what all annihilationists do with Irenaeus: you pull a few sentences out of book IV ch XXXIV paragraph 3, and pretend that paragraphs 1, 2 & 4 do not exist. this is unfaithful on your part, because now we have just read the whole chapter together - so you don't have the excuse that you didn't know the full text of his argument. you read his actual chapter, not just a biased article on some website.

Irenaeus draws a sharp distinction between a soul enduring eternally ((his definition of immortal)) and having life or not. for Irenaeus, a soul dying is specifically not a soul ceasing to exist. it is a soul that exists forever separated from life. that is wholly antithetical to the conclusion you wish to ascribe to him; it is exactly not what he wrote.

 

[posthuman]

Everlasting punishment applies the same way everlasting destruction does. Your view is that punishment is ongoing and never ends. Do you also believe people are destroyed in a never-ending process only to be reformed and destroyed again forever?

remember that the Greek word 'destroy' is to render powerless and bring to ruin. it is not to annihilate.
so to be destroyed forever is to have one's strength removed, never to be regained.

These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
(2 Thessalonians 1:9, nkjv)



​

look at the word with me, so you will no longer have an excuse:









the Greek word that is actually in scripture, translated into English as 'destruction' is Strong's 3639

look at the definition. read it with me so you cannot say you do not know what it is:











see that part that says destruction does not mean extinction or annihilation?
see?


okay?

 

[Runningman]

but this is you doing what all annihilationists do with Irenaeus: you pull a few sentences out of book IV ch XXXIV paragraph 3, and pretend that paragraphs 1, 2 & 4 do not exist. this is unfaithful on your part, because now we have just read the whole chapter together - so you don't have the excuse that you didn't know the full text of his argument. you read his actual chapter, not just a biased article on some website.

Irenaeus draws a sharp distinction between a soul enduring eternally ((his definition of immortal)) and having life or not. for Irenaeus, a soul dying is specifically not a soul ceasing to exist. it is a soul that exists forever separated from life. that is wholly antithetical to the conclusion you wish to ascribe to him; it is exactly not what he wrote.

Not sure what you mean. I love everything I’ve read in Against Heresies so far and haven’t even get tempted to try to misrepresent anything he says to confirm my biases. I think he has sound doctrine.

He talks about conditional immortality because the soul is immortal under some conditions and he explains those. He also explains the conditions the soul is not immortal. We already looked at those so I don’t feel the need to quote them again.

What I’m interested in is if you reject that Irenaeus was a conditionality, as well as Polycarp, and the Apostle John? And if yes, citing scripture if possible, what did they say to make you come to that conclusion?

 

[Runningman]

remember that the Greek word 'destroy' is to render powerless and bring to ruin. it is not to annihilate.
so to be destroyed forever is to have one's strength removed, never to be regained.

These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power ​

(2 Thessalonians 1:9, nkjv) ​

​

​

​

​

look at the word with me, so you will no longer have an excuse:




View attachment 236015




the Greek word that is actually in scripture, translated into English as 'destruction' is Strong's 3639

look at the definition. read it with me so you cannot say you do not know what it is:





View attachment 236016





see that part that says destruction does not mean extinction or annihilation?
see?


okay?




View attachment 236018

You must have thought I didn’t check 2 Thessalonians 1:9. If that was a mistake on your part then no problem.

Here’s what is being used in 2 Thessalonians 1:9

G3639 olethros (link to BibleHub)
olethros: destruction, death
Original Word: ὄλεθρος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: olethros
Phonetic Spelling: (ol'-eth-ros)
Definition: destruction, death
Usage: ruin, doom, destruction, death.

This is talking about permanent, irreversible, death.

For the wages of sin is death. Literally.
The lake of fire is the second death. Literally.
He who does not believe in God’s Son will perish. Literally.

 

[posthuman]

book V ch. XXXIV

typo, that's book II not V

*doh*

 

[posthuman]

He talks about conditional immortality because the soul is immortal under some conditions and he explains those. He also explains the conditions the soul is not immortal. We already looked at those so I don’t feel the need to quote them again.

no, you are completely misrepresenting him.
go back and read it again; here is a link to the post: WHAT IRENAEUS ACTUALLY SAID

read the articles i posted for you.

he defines immortality in terms of existence not in terms of life.
so when he says the soul is immortal, he says it exists forever.
he says there are conditions under which the soul may eternally lose life - not under which the soul loses existence.

he takes Luke 16 to be the literal truth. he takes 1 Thessalonians 1 to be the literal truth.
what he understands from Genesis 2:7 is that existing and having life are distinct, very different things.

 

[posthuman]

G3639 olethros (link to BibleHub)
olethros: destruction, death
Original Word: ὄλεθρος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: olethros
Phonetic Spelling: (ol'-eth-ros)
Definition: destruction, death
Usage: ruin, doom, destruction, death.

link to biblehub??
seriously?

dude i just screenshotted biblehub for you. and now it is not just "i think" but i certainly know you either did not read the whole page, or found half the page to be unhelpful for the skewed case you want to use it for, so you neatly left it off!
Strong's is a concordance, not a dictionary. look please at the actual definition, not just how kjv translates it.

here! i'll post it again for you, the very link you linked, that i had already posted in this thread twice!

please note the highlighted text

 

[posthuman]

link to biblehub??
seriously?

dude i just screenshotted biblehub for you. and now it is not just "i think" but i certainly know you either did not read the whole page, or found half the page to be unhelpful for the skewed case you want to use it for, so you neatly left it off!
Strong's is a concordance, not a dictionary. look please at the actual definition, not just how kjv translates it.

here! i'll post it again for you, the very link you linked, that i had already posted in this thread twice!

please note the highlighted text


View attachment 236020

sorry.
i'm just kind of, wow.

i really thought if i put the whole text in front of you, and the definitions in front of you, you might see them for what they are


ultimately Irenaeus may be wrong. he's just like us; his thoughts and writings are fallible -- but Irenaeus, when properly understood, when not ripped out of context, is IMO certainly not an annihilationist.

 

[Edify]

Does anyone know the problem with polarized arguments?
Sure, there may be a technically "right " side vs a technically "wrong" side.
But when we get flustered at our opponent, our attitude, though we be right, shows us to be wrong.
The old saying goes "two wrongs doesn't make a right".
We make ourselves gullible, instead of fighting for Christ, we fight for ourselves, doing exactly what the devil wants... fighting & being a bad example.

Was it not the Lord who said, "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be crimson, they shall be as white as wool"? Isn't this the attitude He had when He talked to Jonah in the last of the book?
Why does it say in scripture, "Be there not many teachers, because they shall receive the greater damnation"?
It's not worth giving the Devil a black eye when it destroys our credilbility.

 

[posthuman]

Does anyone know the problem with polarized arguments?
Sure, there may be a technically "right " side vs a technically "wrong" side.
But when we get flustered at our opponent, our attitude, though we be right, shows us to be wrong.
The old saying goes "two wrongs doesn't make a right".
We make ourselves gullible, instead of fighting for Christ, we fight for ourselves, doing exactly what the devil wants... fighting & being a bad example.

Was it not the Lord who said, "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be crimson, they shall be as white as wool"? Isn't this the attitude He had when He talked to Jonah in the last of the book?
Why does it say in scripture, "Be there not many teachers, because they shall receive the greater damnation"?
It's not worth giving the Devil a black eye when it destroys our credilbility.

yes

and this is the wisdom in 'answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be also like him'

but here's the rub: the wisdom also remains in,
'answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes'

in the same way that the mouths of those who pervert truth should be stopped, those who blaspheme should be anathema

it's never so simple =p
there is no such thing as discussion without forgiveness

 

[Edify]

yes

and this is the wisdom in 'answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be also like him'

but here's the rub: the wisdom also remains in,
'answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes'

in the same way that the mouths of those who pervert truth should be stopped, those who blaspheme should be anathema

it's never so simple =p
there is no such thing as discussion without forgiveness

"according to" means in a nutshell, "the way he does it"
You're right ...it can be a fine line to walk.

 

[posthuman]

"according to" means in a nutshell, "the way he does it"

the way i've come to understand that diptych is that 'according to' can either mean 'in the same way' or 'in direct response to that way'

_________________

 

[Runningman]

link to biblehub??
seriously?

dude i just screenshotted biblehub for you. and now it is not just "i think" but i certainly know you either did not read the whole page, or found half the page to be unhelpful for the skewed case you want to use it for, so you neatly left it off!
Strong's is a concordance, not a dictionary. look please at the actual definition, not just how kjv translates it.

here! i'll post it again for you, the very link you linked, that i had already posted in this thread twice!

please note the highlighted text


View attachment 236020

The word you’re thinking of that can possibly mean to render powerless is a different word and isn’t used in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

The word you’re thinking of appears in Hebrews 2:14 so it isn’t even applicable in the way you’re trying to use it.

G2673. katargeó
katargeó: to render inoperative, abolish
Original Word: καταργέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katargeó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-arg-eh'-o)
Definition: to render inoperative, abolish
Usage: (a) I make idle (inactive), make of no effect, annul, abolish, bring to naught, (b) I discharge, sever, separate from.

Annihilationism is a bit of a misnomer, but it’s just the name used to describe a doctrine. It’s better to use Conditional Immortality which is more accurate. The annihilationism doctrine just means the wicked do not live forever and are destroyed.

Irenaeus agrees with this, you need to take his words and factor them into the full context rather than throwing them out when they don’t represent him the way you want him to be represented, something eternal tormentors seem to do a great deal of in this thread.

So let me refresh your memory that you’ll no doubt twist and contort to fit your narrative.

“It is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved … [who] shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it … deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuancefor ever and ever … shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.”
-Irenaeus

 

[Runningman]

Does anyone know the problem with polarized arguments?
Sure, there may be a technically "right " side vs a technically "wrong" side.
But when we get flustered at our opponent, our attitude, though we be right, shows us to be wrong.
The old saying goes "two wrongs doesn't make a right".
We make ourselves gullible, instead of fighting for Christ, we fight for ourselves, doing exactly what the devil wants... fighting & being a bad example.

Was it not the Lord who said, "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be crimson, they shall be as white as wool"? Isn't this the attitude He had when He talked to Jonah in the last of the book?
Why does it say in scripture, "Be there not many teachers, because they shall receive the greater damnation"?
It's not worth giving the Devil a black eye when it destroys our credilbility.

I don’t see this as fighting personally. I’m just obeying the Word that told me to give a defense of the faith that is in me and attempting to correct false doctrines. If I feel I have reached a point that I am casting pearls or preaching to those who obstinately reject the truth I’ll move on. I have had to do that a few times on this board.

Besides, most of the time this is just interesting to pass the time and learn new things in the process. Yes it can get emotional because most of us have deeply held sincere beliefs here that we feel passionate about. That’s just how it is.

 

[posthuman]

The word you’re thinking of that can possibly mean to render powerless is a different word and isn’t used in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

no, the word i gave the definition of from 1 Thessalonians 1:9 is the word used in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 -- and it does not mean annihilate

there are many Greek words that kjv puts as 'destroy' sometimes, just as kjv puts 3 different words as 'hell' - per the discussion i had with @LactoseIntolerant last week. one has a possible particular meaning of 'annihilate' -- that's what Christ uses when He says to fear the one ((Him)) who can 'destroy' both body and soul in hell, and it's often also translated as 'perish' in English. Strong's 622, apollumi

 

[Edify]

I don’t see this as fighting personally. I’m just obeying the Word that told me to give a defense of the faith that is in me and attempting to correct false doctrines. If I feel I have reached a point that I am casting pearls or preaching to those who obstinately reject the truth I’ll move on. I have had to do that a few times on this board.

Besides, most of the time this is just interesting to pass the time and learn new things in the process. Yes it can get emotional because most of us have deeply held sincere beliefs here that we feel passionate about. That’s just how it is.

Well, if most I've read gave their "defense of the faith" publically like they do it on here, they'd be sitting in jail somewhere, jus' saying

 

[posthuman]

Annihilationism is a bit of a misnomer, but it’s just the name used to describe a doctrine. It’s better to use Conditional Immortality which is more accurate. The annihilationism doctrine just means the wicked do not live forever and are destroyed.

it's synonymous, even as you are describing it, but i agree 'conditionalism' sounds nicer.. but it is understood that what that term means is 'conditional annihilationism'

it should be pointed out once again that the OP is completely different. he rejects Luke 16 as doctrines of demons ((his own words)) and preaches that all are annihilated. in a previous post in this thread he explicitly made the claim that Jesus was annihilated - hence he calls Jesus a liar in Luke 16, and Peter a liar when he says Jesus preached to the spirits in prison.

Irenaeus is 100% opposed to that view; i'm sure we agree. paragraph 1 of book II chapter XXXIV can't be misconstrued: he takes Luke 16 to be describing the truth, and that is what we must do if we believe scripture - whether we view it as a parable or not is immaterial to this position.

 

[justbyfaith]

Everlasting punishment applies the same way everlasting destruction does. Your view is that punishment is ongoing and never ends. Do you also believe people are destroyed in a never-ending process only to be reformed and destroyed again forever?

I believe that everlasting destruction is by the equation y = 1 / x.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Let me ask you, when the Lord physically died on the cross, His spirit returned to God and His body placed in a tomb. What happened to His soul? Did the Lord cease to exist for three days?

Jesus had two natures - He was fully God and fully man. 100% God and 100'% Man. How can this be? A wise preacher once said, "If you try to explain it, you'll lose your mind, but if you refuse to believe it, you'll lose your soul". We must remember that He is "higher than heaven, what canst thou do? Deeper than hell, what canst thou know?" We are finite trying to describe the Infinite.

The Divine Jesus never died, of course - He's divine. When He said, "I and My Father are One", He spoke as God. When He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM", He spoke as God. But, when He said, "The Son of Man can do nothing of Himself", He spoke as a man. When He prayed, "Father, if it be Your will, take from Me this cup", He prayed as a man.

Therefore, on the Cross, the man Jesus' Spirit returned to God, His body to the tomb (He did not decompose), and He, the Man Jesus ceased to exist until sometime before sunrise Sunday morning.

 

[Phoneman-777]

It should be clear that there is everlasting punishment awaiting the unredeemed sinner in the form of everlasting fire where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(Matthew 25:46; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 13:49-50).

So, should be clear that Sodom and Gomorrah - two cities burned with "everlasting fire" - are still burning and will always be burning?

Or, since both cities are NOT burning and are at this very moment under the Dead Sea, is consistent theology not important to the Immortal Soul crowd?